Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Confiscation of smuggled gold bars/biscuits u/ss 111(b), 111(d), and 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants failed to establish the licit procurement of the foreign-marked gold with 99.90% purity, a notified item u/s 123, thereby not discharging their burden of proving ownership. While the gold cannot be released due to unestablished ownership, the Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on the appellants considering the roles played and the nature of the offense, deeming the initial penalties excessive compared to the gold's value. The penalty reductions were: Appellant 1 from Rs. 6,25,000 to Rs. 3,50,000, Appellant 2 from Rs. 6,50,000 to Rs. 4,00,000, and Appellant 3 from Rs. 5,80,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Confiscation of smuggled gold bars/biscuits u/ss 111(b), 111(d), and 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants failed to establish the licit procurement of the foreign-marked gold with 99.90% purity, a notified item u/s 123, thereby not discharging their burden of proving ownership. While the gold cannot be released due to unestablished ownership, the Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on the appellants considering the roles played and the nature of the offense, deeming the initial penalties excessive compared to the gold's value. The penalty reductions were: Appellant 1 from Rs. 6,25,000 to Rs. 3,50,000, Appellant 2 from Rs. 6,50,000 to Rs. 4,00,000, and Appellant 3 from Rs. 5,80,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
